Page 243 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., COIMBATORE v. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD. 225

(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in deciding an appeal in favour of
the party without ever discussing the question of unjust enrichment
on which the refund claims were rightly rejected by the lower fora?
(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in deciding the appeal in favour of
the party by relying on Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s.
Bangalore Wire Rod Mills reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.) in
which there was no discussion at all about Section 27 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962?
(4) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the warehousing pe-
riod applicable would be the period in force on the date of deposit
of the goods in the warehouse, in spite of further amendment
brought in to reduce the warehousing period?
(5) Whether the Tribunal was right in coming to a conclusion that the
issue of interest free warehousing period was settled by the Apex
Court by virtue of the above cited case law when in fact the Court
has not made any observation nor came to any conclusion about the
interest free warehousing period?”
5. We have heard Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Commis-
sioner of Customs & Central Excise, Coimbatore and perused the materials avail-
able on record.
6. In Union of India v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mill [1996 (83) E.L.T. 251
(S.C.)], the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows :-
“3. For a proper appreciation of the questions arising herein, it is
necessary to state a few more facts : on the date of warehousing the goods,
the rate of customs duty chargeable on the imported goods was forty per
cent ad valorem. The rate of duty was being raised from time to time and on
September 9, 1988, the date on which the goods were cleared from the
warehouse, the rate of duty was ninety per cent. The Act, as in force at the
relevant time, permitted an importer either to clear the goods immediately
on their import or to warehouse them without paying the duty. The ware-
housing of the goods without paying the duty was, however, subject to cer-
tain conditions specified in Section 59. Sub-section (1) of Section 59, which
alone is relevant for our purposes, read thus at the relevant time.
“59. Warehousing bond. - (1) The importer of any dutiable
goods which have been entered for warehousing and assessed to duty
under Section 17 or Section 18 shall execute a bond binding himself in
a sum equal to twice the amount of the duty assessed on such goods;
(a) to observe all the provisions of this Act and the Rules and
Regulations in respect of such goods;
(b) to pay on or before a date specified in a notice of demand, all
duties, rent and charges claimable on account of such goods
under this Act, together with interest on the same from the
date so specified at the rate of six per cent per annum or such
other rate as is for the time being fixed by the Board; and
(c) to discharge all penalties incurred in violation of the provi-
sions of this Act and the rules and regulations in respect of
such goods.”
A reading of Section 59(1) shows that an importer who seeks to have
the imported goods warehoused has to first have the goods assessed under
Section 17 or Section 18, as the case may be, and then execute a bond bind-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  243